Poeppel (1996) raises a number of criticisms about the methods and rep
orted results for eight studies of phonological processing from six di
fferent neuroimaging laboratories. We would freely admit that valid cr
iticisms of PET methodology can be made and that, like any method, it
has limitations: in fact, we and others have engaged in such critical
commentary (Steinmetz & Seitz, 1991: Sergent et al., 1992; Demonet, 19
95: Fiez et al., 1996a: Zatorre et al., 1996). Poeppel's analysis, tho
ugh, falls far short of providing new insights into the limitations of
PET methodology or the means by which future functional imaging studi
es could be improved. Many of Poeppel's criticisms derive from a failu
re to understand some of the fundamental issues which motivate functio
nal imaging studies, including those he reviews. However, we are grate
ful to our critic inasmuch as he offers us the challenge to clarify ou
r positions on important aspects of our experimental design, analysis,
and interpretation. In our discussion of these issues, we begin with
a general commentary, followed by specific comments from individual au
thors. (C) 1996 Academic Press, Inc.